Commonwealth v. Smith
47 A.3d 862
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- AppellantAndrew Smith was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of a child under thirteen, two counts of unlawful contact with a minor, two counts of corruption of the morals of a minor, and one count of aggravated indecent assault.
- The victims were J.D.R. (12) and G.O. (12); the abuse occurred in 2005 in Philadelphia and involved an ongoing mentor-relationship through martial arts classes.
- Appellant challenged admission of an electronic message (Exhibit D-8) allegedly recanting the allegations, and the consolidation of the two cases for trial.
- Trial court found the message unauthenticated and not admissible hearsay; Appellant did not preserve a prior inconsistent statement argument.
- The court upheld consolidation as proper under Rule 582, finding substantial similarity and separability of the offenses despite minor differences.
- Judgment of sentence affirmed; jurisdiction relinquished.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by excluding Exhibit D-8 on authentication/hearsay grounds | Appellant argues the message was authentic and exculpatory | Smith failed to preserve the prior inconsistent statement argument | Waived; trial court properly excluded absent proper objection |
| Whether consolidation of the two cases for trial was improper | Appellant contends no common plan and high risk of prejudice | Common plan and admissibility of other acts justified consolidation | Consolidation affirmed; substantial similarity and separability established |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 598 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1991) (consolidation proper where substantial similarities exist and juries can separate evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 729 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1999) (consolidation proper with multiple indicia of similarity)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 555 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1989) (consolidation warranted by extensive factual overlap)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 399 A.2d 123 (Pa. 1979) (limits on similarity; examples of non-similar offenses)
- In re F.P., 878 A.2d 91 (Pa. Super. 2005) (admissibility framework for instant messages/emails)
- Commonwealth v. Powers, 577 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1990) (admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts to rebut credibility)
- Boykin v. Brown, 868 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2005) (waiver rules for appellate review; preserve hearsay exceptions below)